Empirical Evidence for the Mecosystem/Internal Family Systems?

[MysterionMuffles]

I very much enjoy the idea of the individual containing a multiplicity of sub-personalities. I've had a small introduction to that idea when I read a quote by an author whose name I can't remember. It went along the lines of, "a writer is just many people trying to be one." It plays on the idea that any author's characters are just basically an extention of themselves and their own subconscious, and as a writer my self, I identified with that idea quite strongly. But for a while I thought it was exclusive only to us, and then I started hearing more about Stef's references to the Mecosystem and a few people in the FDR community talk about the helpfulness of IFS therapy.

 

Personally for me, in the past 10 days of daily consistent journalling, I've used an IFS/Mecosystem approach to writing out my internal dialogue. It seems very very helpful in figuring my self out. It feels less of an argument of the self, and more of a simple dialogue amongst sub-selves. Applying different personality traits, roles, and intentions onto separate parts of my self I can label has made it easier to quell my ambivelance about my personality and life itself. I've discovered many parts, labelled them as inner-[father, mother, child etc. just to name a few] and put a voice to each of them. They've all had interesting things to say.

 

Anyways, I won't get too into detail about my personal revelations using this approach. What I do want to know if there is any empirical evidence of the IFS/Mecosystem being a real phenomenon. Like have there been studies that show people's brains lighting up different parts of their brains when certain motives, roles, feelings are accessed? Somehow signifying switches between subpersonalities.

 

The human mind is so goddamn hard to wrap your head around (probably not the best metaphor lol).

 

 

I do believe we have the tendancy to infect our personalities onto each other and we influence each other consciously and subconsciously, seems about right. And the idea that this methodology helps a ton, with or without a therapist's guidance...would that be enough empirical evidence that I need?

 

[Stephen C]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Family_Systems_Model

Criticism[edit]

Critics have been pointing out that there is no empirical data comparing IFS to other proven methods, and that there have been no follow-up studies to investigate the long-term success rate of IFS. This makes it impossible to verify whether IFS is actually an effective form of therapy.^[8][9]

Hello, MCS's Critic Part. 

[STer]

Someone once emailed me and asked about this very question. I answered as best I could in this blog post:

 

Why the Internal Family Systems Model is Valuable Despite the Need for and Difficulties it Poses for Research

[PatrickC]

No, there doesn't seem to be any empirical data out there to support IFS. But as STer infers in his blog post, that doesn't mean it doesn't have value and with more research who knows.

 

Personally I wouldn't rely on IFS as a single approach to therapy, but I think it can compliment talk therapy rather well with a competent psychologist.

[STer]

No, there doesn't seem to be any empirical data out there to support IFS. But as STer infers in his blog post, that doesn't mean it doesn't have value and with more research who knows.

 

Personally I wouldn't rely on IFS as a single approach to therapy, but I think it can compliment talk therapy rather well with a competent psychologist.

IFS is a form of talk therapy. It's just a particular way of talking to the person in that you communicate with and have them communicate with their various parts rather than talking to them as if they're one unity. I think IFS is so fundamental to the way people experience things that even if you just talk to people in another way, at some point, they will express something parts-related. The difference with a person who knows IFS is they'll pick up on that and use it rather than just let it pass as a figure of speech.

[PatrickC]

Well, sure it is. But my concern is that people see IFS as a one stop fits all. People often engage in IFS alone and it can be quite overwhelming for them. This is where I consider the more traditional approaches to talk therapy as being able to support people through those moments.

 

May be this will change, as the data and research become more compelling that regular therapists start to employ IFS into their own therapeutic models. For now, I think using a mixture of IFS alongside professional support to be the most productive and secure approaches to introspection.

 

Of course, all the above is just my opinion, based on my own experience and that of a few others I've known. So take it with all the salt necessary.

[STer]

Well, sure it is. But my concern is that people see IFS as a one stop fits all. People often engage in IFS alone and it can be quite overwhelming for them. This is where I consider the more traditional approaches to talk therapy as being able to support people through those moments.

 

May be this will change, as the data and research become more compelling that regular therapists start to employ IFS into their own therapeutic models. For now, I think using a mixture of IFS alongside professional support to be the most productive and secure approaches to introspection.

 

Of course, all the above is just my opinion, based on my own experience and that of a few others I've known. So take it with all the salt necessary.

Yeah like I talk about in the blog post it's a massive misunderstanding of IFS as a whole that it's only about the internal family when it's really supposed to be about the internal family, external family, community, society - every level. It's such a shame it was named for what is really just the most novel part of it, but actually only a small part. And IFS is great because it lends itself to working alone, but working alone isn't always optimal until someone is able to find their Self consistently.

 

"I think using a mixture of IFS alongside professional support to be the most productive..."

 

See to me IFS isn't something you can use or not use any more than anatomy is something a doctor can use or not use. To me the internal family system is simply the internal anatomy of the psyche. No therapist can fail to use it. Every therapist is always relating to the internal family whether they realize it or not. In fact, in every interaction we have with anyone we are interacting with it just as we interact with their skeleton when we shake their hand.

 

Also there is no dichotomy between IFS and professional support. It's just a matter of doing IFS alone vs. doing IFS with a professional.

 

I think because of the novelty of the internal part of IFS and the fact it was named for that novel part, it has led to so much unnecessary confusion about it.

[cherapple]

I don't know whether ambivalence qualifies as empirical evidence, but if we had only one personality, how would we explain holding opposing or conflicting ideas, thoughts, and feelings at the same time? 

[STer]

I don't know whether ambivalence qualifies as empirical evidence, but if we had only one personality, how would we explain holding opposing or conflicting ideas, thoughts, and feelings at the same time? 

I think it does qualify as empirical evidence that this is how we humans experience our minds. It's not empirical evidence that explains why that is or that there is any directly analogous biological underpinning to it. It doesn't show that there are various personality centers in the brain or anything like that. But IFS, as far as I know, makes no such claim. It only claims that our experience is of multiplicity.

 

Hopefully further neuroscience research will help understand why and how this experience of multiplicity emerges.

[Pepin]

A nice example I like to point out is when you start acting in a way that you don't like and are just kind of watching yourself. This happens in a lot of conflicts like with your partner where you might say to yourself "ok, don't escalate", and then the next phrase to come out of your mouth is the exact opposite. A back and forth occurs, and then eventually, you find yourself yelling at the person and you are just kind of watching thinking "ok, I need to stop yelling, apologize, and take control", and this really doesn't work. People with anger issues seem to talk about this sort of effect quite a lot.

[MysterionMuffles]

Hotdamn! Thanks for all the replies guys, STer I loved your blog post. So multi-sided and open to interpretation. I learned a lot as well.

 

Lol at Stephen, yes thanks for satisfying my critic's curiousity. 

 

I'll respond to this thread on how I feel and what I've gathered about IFS when I get a chance to watch the video Stephen shared. This is shaping up to be a really helpful methodology and increasing understanding for it can only benefit me further.

[STer]

Hotdamn! Thanks for all the replies guys, STer I loved your blog post. So multi-sided and open to interpretation. I learned a lot as well.

 

Lol at Stephen, yes thanks for satisfying my critic's curiousity. 

 

I'll respond to this thread on how I feel and what I've gathered about IFS when I get a chance to watch the video Stephen shared. This is shaping up to be a really helpful methodology and increasing understanding for it can only benefit me further.

Thanks. Glad it helped with your question! I'm looking forward to watching the video Stephen shared, as well.

[MysterionMuffles]

WOW Stephen man, I have to admit. My critic did actively avoid the video you shared, but I let him know that he can still be sceptical during or even after this video. 

 

I still sort of am, but I have a better understanding of how it is possible to have subselves because of the brain region arguments in particular. This makes me want to look further into that because that's the kind of physical evidence I was looking for, even though a part of me thinks that personal ambivelance is already enough. Again, the critic though won't settle for that, so thank you for sharing the video because now IFS therapy and its helpfulness is amplified through the accumilation of proof provided in this post, and as I read the Self Therapy book further.

[STer]

MCS,

 

It is just another example of emergent properties. Humans can talk. Cells don't talk. If you require evidence of talking cells to believe that people talk, you won't find them. But we do talk.

 

Similarly, we experience subselves. That doesn't mean if you go to the lower levels, like the brain, you'll find anything analogous to subselves biologically. Emergent levels of systems are more than the sum of their parts.

 

And again, IFS isn't claiming, at least as far as I know, that this is anything more than how we experience things. They aren't claiming there are little people actually running our brains. Just that, for whatever reason, our minds are experienced that way. It may be completely an illusion, but regardless, it seems to be something helpful that we can harness for our benefit.

[MysterionMuffles]

Yes probably infinitely more helpful than prayer which is an IFS talk with your inner-God, which I really think is your inner condemning parent

[STer]

Yes probably infinitely more helpful than prayer which is an IFS talk with your inner-God, which I really think is your inner condemning parent

That's a very interesting point. Although not everyone conceives of God as condemning. Some conceive of a very loving, caring God. We could speculate on what inner parts are behind that, as well.

[MysterionMuffles]

Lol yeah I was just making a satirical generalization.

 

Anyways, I'm still new to IFS and not too far into the book by Jay Earley. I've gone so far as to read the first example session and saw how helpful it could be.

 

However, I feel like the way I'm using the concept is very different from it, but still pretty helpful. The way I'm using it is putting a name to certain behaviours, mainly one that used to ignore my grandma's needs. I labelled that my inner-father, a direct influence of how negligent and downright aggressive my father was towards me, and still IS towards my grandmother on a daily basis. I've never tried to heal the part, rather recognize its existence. Since I've gotten aware of it, I've been able to tell it to "please be quiet, and let me speak instead." And for once, I've been consistently sweet, caring and kind towards my grandmother, finally being one of the few people in my family who is not annoyed by her nor nags her for the way she is.

 

I have a more in-depth post about how I became kinder to my grandmother through a series of IFS inspired journal entries you can read here.

 

But basically, there are many parts of my self I've been discovering and I haven't done much in identifying them as either protectors or exiles. Just very negative influences that I am able to quiet now and no longer let control me. Is this approach valuable? It still seems like it right now, but if anyone can give me feedback on the faultiness of that approach and how it may not be as permanently helpful as I'm hoping it to be, and assuming it to be since I've been pretty serene for 14 days straight. I mean the last time I was ever consistently happy everyday for two weeks straight was when I went on a cruise in Europe and that was two years ago.

 

ANYWAYS those are my thoughts so far.

[Lians]

There's only anecdotal evidence for the IFS approach. I don't see why that would be a problem. I read quite a bit about IFS last year, but never fully committed to trying it out. I recently decided to give it another shot. I filtered out the inconsistencies (i.e. being open and curious yet going in with the goal of healing/reconciliation) and the ideas that clashed with empirical evidence (i.e. everyone has a true self). Giving some sort of form to your thoughts (thus identifying different parts) and negotiating with them is my particular approach. Nothing formal and it involves quite a bit of imagination. I've tried it a few times and I've had positive results, but I'll have to wait and see how things develop in the long run. Just focus on the process, not the conclusions. You can't negotiate when you have a goal that's already set in stone. Look for Stef's podcasts on negotiation.

[Wuzzums]

First time I heard of it. Sounds too much like one of those feel-good theories that puts strong emphasis on not taking responsibility of one's actions.

 

"No, no, no, I'm not being mean right now, my mean personality is acting up, I'm actually quite nice, I've got tons of nice personalities, you must just wait a while for them to surface up."

"No, no, no, I didn't kill those people, the devil made me do it. I'm actually innocent."

"I shouldn't be judged by what I do, I should be judged by what I could do!"

 

A quote from the wikipedia entry:

 

 

Even people whose experience is dominated by parts have access to this Self and its healing qualities of curiosity, connectedness, compassion, and calmness.

 

Out of all the phrases pulled directly out of people's asses, this is most certainly one of them. I can do it too. Here's my version of IFS with the addendum: "Beyond the Self there's the Super Duper Self which has super duper healing qualities such as super curiosity, super connectedness, super compassion, and... SHARING." Prove me wrong.

 

There's not a single self sustaining definition in that whole article. "What's the Self? The Self is something that is and it is great! Don't you wanna have a awesome Self, too? What's a subpersonality? Well it's something that makes up personalities, duh!"

 

It's like saying the air is made of pixies. And what are pixies? Well pixies are a collection of dwarfs, and dwarfs are made out elves, and elves are made out of bunnies. There's literally to limit to the bs you could come up with to "prove" a non-testable theory.

 

 

Anyways, this whole multiple personalities talk reminded me of this gem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tITzDjPf4g

[STer]

First time I heard of it. Sounds too much like one of those feel-good theories that puts strong emphasis on not taking responsibility of one's actions.

 

"No, no, no, I'm not being mean right now, my mean personality is acting up, I'm actually quite nice, I've got tons of nice personalities, you must just wait a while for them to surface up."

"No, no, no, I didn't kill those people, the devil made me do it. I'm actually innocent."

"I shouldn't be judged by what I do, I should be judged by what I could do!"

 

A quote from the wikipedia entry:

 

Out of all the phrases pulled directly out of people's asses, this is most certainly one of them. I can do it too. Here's my version of IFS with the addendum: "Beyond the Self there's the Super Duper Self which has super duper healing qualities such as super curiosity, super connectedness, super compassion, and... SHARING." Prove me wrong.

 

There's not a single self sustaining definition in that whole article. "What's the Self? The Self is something that is and it is great! Don't you wanna have a awesome Self, too? What's a subpersonality? Well it's something that makes up personalities, duh!"

 

It's like saying the air is made of pixies. And what are pixies? Well pixies are a collection of dwarfs, and dwarfs are made out elves, and elves are made out of bunnies. There's literally to limit to the bs you could come up with to "prove" a non-testable theory.

 

 

Anyways, this whole multiple personalities talk reminded me of this gem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tITzDjPf4g

There are so many misunderstandings of what IFS actually says in your post.

 

The only thing I agree with in it is that it is definitely an article of faith to claim that everyone has access to a Self that is compassionate. I'm not convinced psychopaths and some others do. And I've asked about that and not gotten satisfactory answers to it. But this is a minority of people.

 

However, ignore for a moment any claims about the particular qualities of the Self. Just consider the Self the capacity you have to observe all of the other aspects of yourself from a detached mindset. It's the same thing people do when they meditate and simply become aware of whatever is floating through their mind. That simple awareness - the watcher or observer - is the Self. I don't think it's even remotely controversial to claim that most of us have that observer aspect. Do you not experience that?

 

As for Dissociative Identity Disorder vs. IFS parts, the difference between these is addressed in Schwartz's book. DID Is a far more extreme situation where the parts alternate in completely taking over the person and aren't even aware of each other. When one part takes over, the person has no memory in many cases of anything that happened while another part was in charge.

 

The irony of what you said, however, is that DID is a pretty well-established phenomenon, which only serves to support the notion that there are in fact parts experienced which can become extreme in some cases.

 

As I've mentioned in the thread a couple times, IFS does not say there actually ARE these subselves in any real way. It simply says we experience things this way in our minds and that it seems to be helpful to people to talk and think about them as if they were subselves. Do you not experience inner conflicts? Could you not relate to the idea that part of you wants one thing, but part wants another? If not, you'd be the first person I've ever talked to who couldn't. If so, then that's all IFS is really talking about. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

IFS was born when a therapist noticed that clients talked about themselves in terms of these subselves or parts and simply went along with the idea and it helped them. It helped because people experience their minds that way, for whatever reason. Think of it as a software issue, not a direct hardware issue. For whatever reason, people seem to relate to that kind of linguistic and visual approach to things.

 

Finally, I can't even imagine an IFS practitioner of any credibility who would claim that the fact that we have parts means we aren't responsible for our behavior. The entire point of IFS is to increase our responsibility by having us own all of the various sides as parts of ourselves, not to claim they aren't ourselves. Someone who doesn't know IFS might say "I wasn't myself that night when I did that." Someone who does know IFS will say "That was a part of me that did that that night, but it's not the only part of me." Which one is more responsible?

[Stephen C]

I like your posts here, Ster. Thanks for your additions to the topic.

WOW Stephen man, I have to admit. My critic did actively avoid the video you shared, but I let him know that he can still be sceptical during or even after this video. 

 

I still sort of am, but I have a better understanding of how it is possible to have subselves because of the brain region arguments in particular. This makes me want to look further into that because that's the kind of physical evidence I was looking for, even though a part of me thinks that personal ambivelance is already enough. Again, the critic though won't settle for that, so thank you for sharing the video because now IFS therapy and its helpfulness is amplified through the accumilation of proof provided in this post, and as I read the Self Therapy book further.

That sounds great. I think the skepticism is useful, so big thanks to your "critic" Part for watching your back and keeping you safe the best way it knows how. I try to remind myself that people in general are going to have a Manager / Protector Part that is skeptical about a Self / Part model or any therapeutic model really. It's helpful to me because I have a Part that wants to strongly defend the beliefs I carry that I'm passionate about and that when I'm blended with that Part it makes it difficult to be curious, calm, confident and compassionate. I have worked with a Part that is skeptical about the therapy process. I've come to realize that Part has concerned about change most of all. For most of my life if I changed my patterns and beliefs I would of been attacked, so this Part is vigilant as a mofo. Thanks for making this thread, it's interesting to see what people have to say about this. 

[Wuzzums]

However, ignore for a moment any claims about the particular qualities of the Self. Just consider the Self the capacity you have to observe all of the other aspects of yourself from a detached mindset. It's the same thing people do when they meditate and simply become aware of whatever is floating through their mind. That simple awareness - the watcher or observer - is the Self. I don't think it's even remotely controversial to claim that most of us have that observer aspect. Do you not experience that?

 

So if it is a meditative state why not call it a "meditative state" or "awareness"? What's the point of renaming well established and proven ideas? "Mindfulness" is another term used to describe this very exact same thing and a lot more famous. Why isn't that word used?

 

 

As I've mentioned in the thread a couple times, IFS does not say there actually ARE these subselves in any real way. It simply says we experience things this way in our minds and that it seems to be helpful to people to talk and think about them as if they were subselves. Do you not experience inner conflicts? Could you not relate to the idea that part of you wants one thing, but part wants another? If not, you'd be the first person I've ever talked to who couldn't. If so, then that's all IFS is really talking about. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Again, IFS is describing that which people are fully aware of yet it adds special terms on top to explain things better. If people already know the elements of the IFS what's the point of defining them using specific words? The wikipedia article has a strong emphasis on these terms.

Exiles = parts that are in pain, shame, fear, or trauma, usually from childhood.

Why not call "exiles" just that: pain, shame, fear, trauma, etc? 

Managers = parts with preemptive protective roles.

Why not call it just "preemptive protectors" for ease of understanding?

Firefighters = parts that emerge when exiles break out and demand attention. These parts work to distract a person's attention from the hurt or shame experienced by the exile by leading them to engage in impulsive behaviors like overeating, drug use, fighting, or having inappropriate sex. They can also distract from the pain by causing a person to focus excessively on more subtle activities such as overworking, over-medicating.

Another term that describes exiles and firefighters is neurosis. Why isn't that used? Not saying that it should be used, but why not? People are more familiar with what neurosis is rather than what firefighter and exiles are. Isn't the purpose of these terms to make the theory as clear as possible?

 

Furthermore why is the concept of "Self" (the only one associated with great terms) use the word "self" if it's not trying to sound misleading? Why wasn't it called, much in the spirit of exiles and firefighters and managers, something like "the spelunker"? Or, the other way around. Why weren't the exiles, firefighters and managers called something like exiled self, firefighting self and manager self? 

 

I come from a medical background and I'm very weary of special jargon. It's usually employed to repackage something old and very often quite obvious, or sometimes used when the speaker doesn't really know what they're talking about, or when the speaker wants to sound superior to the listener (which is quite often the case in the medical field).

[STer]

So if it is a meditative state why not call it a "meditative state" or "awareness"? What's the point of renaming well established and proven ideas? "Mindfulness" is another term used to describe this very exact same thing and a lot more famous. Why isn't that word used?

Because the idea of IFS is to personify these aspects since that's the way people repeatedly spoke of them in therapy. Thinking of the sources of these experiences as personifications resonated with people and helped them communicate with themselves more effectively.

 

So what do you name that aspect of someone (in IFS, the Self is technically not consider a part the way other parts are) that exhibits this mindfulness and observation? It is obviously a special aspect of someone since it is the aspect that can detach from all the others and observe. What do you call that so as to personify it, as well as to indicate the specialness of it?

 

Schwartz chose to name it the Self. It seems as good as many other names you could choose. But the exact name isn't that relevant. It's just relevant that there is something to call it so people know what we're referring to when communicating internally and with each other. And in IFS if a client said "I don't like the name Self, I prefer something else" I can guarantee any good therapist would say "That's fine, call it whatever works for you." The point is to simply help the person communicate their experience.

 

Again, IFS is describing that which people are fully aware of yet it adds special terms on top to explain things better. If people already know the elements of the IFS what's the point of defining them using specific words? The wikipedia article has a strong emphasis on these terms.

Exiles = parts that are in pain, shame, fear, or trauma, usually from childhood. [/size]

Why not call "exiles" just that: pain, shame, fear, trauma, etc? [/size]

Because again the entire point is to personify the sources of these experiences because that is how many clients experience things and intuitively talk about them. Also the pain, fear, shame, etc. don't all seem to come from one place. One fear may seem to come from one part, another fear from another part. But the personification is the entire point.

 

Managers = parts with preemptive protective roles. [/size]

Why not call it just "preemptive protectors" for ease of understanding?[/size]

Actually some DO refer to managers as "protectors." It just depends if you're focusing on their purpose or their actions. Their purpose is to protect more vulnerable parts. But how they go about doing that is by doing managing behaviors and situations carefully. So they protect by managing. Usually people first notice the behavior of the part - the managing behaviors - before they realize there is another part there being protected, which is the underlying goal. Remember, the exiles being protected are usually unconscious at first, so it's not evident that protection is going on until later. So I think Schwartz named managers after the managing behavior which is more evident earlier on.

 

Firefighters = parts that emerge when exiles break out and demand attention. These parts work to distract a person's attention from the hurt or shame experienced by the exile by leading them to engage in impulsive behaviors like overeating, drug use, fighting, or having inappropriate sex. They can also distract from the pain by causing a person to focus excessively on more subtle activities such as overworking, over-medicating.[/size]

Another term that describes exiles and firefighters is neurosis. Why isn't that used? Not saying that it should be used, but why not? People are more familiar with what neurosis is rather than what firefighter and exiles are. Isn't the purpose of these terms to make the theory as clear as possible?

No, neurosis describes what the behavior of some exiles and firefighters creates. The exiles and firefighters are the parts that people experience as driving it. You continue to mix up the behavior itself with what IFS is focusing on which is the source of the behavior as experienced by someone. We would certainly talk about neurosis in IFS, but we'd say "This particular neurotic behavior seems to be coming from this firefighter." And then we'd name the firefighter based on what kind of neurotic behavior it drives or perhaps what its role is in the system that drives it to provoke that behavior.

 

Furthermore why is the concept of "Self" (the only one associated with great terms) use the word "self" if it's not trying to sound misleading? Why wasn't it called, much in the spirit of exiles and firefighters and managers, something like "the spelunker"? Or, the other way around. Why weren't the exiles, firefighters and managers called something like exiled self, firefighting self and manager self? 

 

I come from a medical background and I'm very weary of special jargon. It's usually employed to repackage something old and very often quite obvious, or sometimes used when the speaker doesn't really know what they're talking about, or when the speaker wants to sound superior to the listener (which is quite often the case in the medical field).

Like I said earlier, the Self is not considered just another part like the others. It is special. So it isn't just another part that "spelunks." It has a special role in the system that is unique and qualitatively different from parts. As for the parts, you wouldn't want to name them "self" because you don't want to get too blended with them.

 

There is something important you may be missing too. The exiles, firefighters and managers are parts that are in extreme roles. Those are the 3 categories of extreme roles parts can get stuck in. There are other parts that are just in healthy roles and are not managers, firefighters or exiles. And when an exile, for example, comes out of exile, it becomes a healthy part, no longer an exile. So you can refer to it as an exiled part. But to call it a "self" would kind of be counterproductive because one of the main things you want to do in IFS is help people keep healthy boundaries between their Self and these extreme parts which, if they take over, cause a lot of unhealthy behavior. Unblending from extreme parts is one of the key procedures in IFS.

 

I also have a background in medicine. I understand your wariness. But I also think it's not very relevant here and that you'd realize that if you learned more about IFS and Schwartz's actual views and why and how IFS was developed. You really should read Schwartz's original book about IFS. If you did, you'd realize he isn't really trying to claim this is totally new. He even has parts where he talks about the precursors to IFS. The fact that what he's saying isn't totally novel, but incorporates a lot of other people's work, lends it credibility if anything.

 

I think the bottom line is if you really want to understand IFS more you should read his book. And a lot of your concerns just come back to the point that this is not something Schwartz created and thrust upon clients, but the opposite. Clients kept talking in terms of parts over and over and over. He finally decided to stop fighting it and go with it and talk to them the way they were talking to him. When they kept saying "A part of me seems to want X" he stopped avoiding it and started saying "OK tell me about this part" and they would tell him. And the more he went with it, the more they related and these parts were able to get into healthier roles and so on. It's a very practical, emergent process that came from actual therapy.

 

I don't know if there is a biological underpinning analogous to these parts. But for whatever reason, personifying these parts in the mind and relating to them as parts seems to work as a proxy for whatever is underneath. This doesn't surprise me because if you think about the evolution of our minds, it would make sense. It's the same reason that stories and myths and metaphors can have such an effect on the mind. We seem to have evolved to personify and relate to things in terms of characters. We even personify other animals and sometimes cities and so on. It helps us to relate. So I think the personification that goes on in IFS is a way of giving the human mind a better handle to work on issues as a proxy.

[MysterionMuffles]

Ah man, Schwartz is who I gotta read after Earley. Clearly there's more to it especially to come from the originator.

[STer]

Ah man, Schwartz is who I gotta read after Earley. Clearly there's more to it especially to come from the originator.

Yes, in fact what Earley is trying to do is sort of help people apply IFS-based concepts in a more user-friendly way that doesn't require as much knowledge of the underlying details. Schwartz's work is like the 1's and 0's and Earley is creating user-friendly GUI's. If you really want to understand you should read Schwartz's main Internal Family Systems Therapy book, the one I link to on this page. That's the book that I learned all the nuts and bolts from.